Audubon County Republican. [volume] (Audubon, Audubon Co., Iowa) 1885-1894, 1887-09-15
IMPORTANT DECISION.
The Supreme Court Of Iowa and the
Big Dlstillery.
The Decision or tho Lower Court sus.
taincd--Judges Sewers and
Reed Dissent.

The Supreme Court September 10th
filed Its decision In the case against tho
big distillery OF Des Moines. affirming the
opinion OF Judge Conrad Of the Polk
County District Court which convicted
the distillery under the State prohibition
law, and ordered il closed as nuisance.
The majority opinion sustains that Of
Judge Conrad Of the Polk County Court,
The case upon which this decision was
rendered Is entitled:
|. f. Pearson. $. j. Loughran vs.. The
International Distillery aud John S.
Kidd. appellant Appeal from Polk
Judge.
Action to declare distillery nuisance
and to enjoin the manufacture. the selling
and keeping for sale therein OF all intoxi'
eating liquors. A decree In accord with
the prayer Of the petition was rendered
against defendant Kidd after trial on
the merits, He appeals to this court.
Lehman n Park. G. g, Nourse, George
q, Wright, for appellant
l., Todhunier, Runnells q Walker,
Cole, McVey Il Clark. for appellees,
The petition describes tho lots upon
which the distillcry named In the petition
Is situated and alleges that II was erected
and Is used for the manufacture OF In
toXicating liquors for unlawful purposes,
and that defendant now Is engaged In the
unlawful sale of such liquors In the prem
Uses described, 1t Is alleged that the
defendants manufacture, keep for sale
and sell within this State and at the place
aforesaid. Intoxicating liquors to be taken
out of the State and there used an n bev.
erngc. and for other purposes than for
medicinal. mechanical, sacramental and
culinary purposes, contrary TO the statute
OF Iowa"
Before answe rthe plaintiffs dismissed
their action as against the International
Distillery. Kidd answers the petition
denying all OF It's allegations lie also
alleges that he Is authorized by the Board
Of Supervisors 10 manufacture and sell
intoxicating liquors, except us prohibited
by law, and that he has in the manufac-
lure and sale of liquors complied with oil
requirements Of the law
The Supreme Court reviews the case
thoroughly and eXhaustiyely, discussing
the main question involved as TO whether
Under our statute intoxicating liquors may
be manufactured In this State for trans
portation aud sale beyond the borders
without regard TO to the purpose Of Its
use. Or, in other words. is tho exporta.
lion out of the State "A purpose for which
Intoxicating liquors muy be lawfully
manufactured and soldS Counsel for de.
PENDANTS maintain that the statute OF the
State authorizes the manufacture and sale
Of Intoxicating liquors for expectation
transportation out OF the State, without
any restrictions rs to their use, This the
counsel for plaintiffs deny. The majority
Of the court concludes their opinion with
the statement that the lower court right
fully found under the evidence that de.
PENDANT maintained a nuisance by manu-
featuring liquor contrary TO law, His
permit Is no protection against the pen
alties provided therefor. Having been
found a violatcr of the law the court will
not presume that he will hereafter obey
the law. lie makes no claim or promise
that he will hereafter conduct his bust
ness lawfully The violation Of the law
works forfeiture OF his permit. For
these reasons the decree correctly directs
the closing of the distillcry; ut all events
II IL In accord with the statutes. IL de-
PENDANT Is q lessee of the premises the
lessor may obtain possession Of the
property by complying with the require
ments Of the statute. Acts Twenty-tirsi
General Assembly, chapter 90, seclion o.
lie suffers no prejudice from the decree.
They say they have considered all quos
tons arising In the case and reach the
conclusion that the decree OF tho District
Court ought to be affirmed.
Judge Sewers files dissenting opinion
which Is concurred in by Judge Reed
holding that the only meaning OF the
statute IL that the sale In this State and
The manufacture for sale and uso In thit
state of intoxicating liquors for unlawful
purposes are alone prohibited, and thai
statute does not undertake TO say wha
may be done with the liquor In another
State II 1t did so question would b.
presented as to the validity Of the statute
Therefore the right to sell and transport
liquor from the State exists simply be
cause IL Is not prohibited. In their opln
ion the construction OF the statute adopt
ed by the majority makes conflict be
tween II and the Constitution OF thu
United States As long as intoxicating
liquors and corn are regarded as property
the right to transport either out OF thu
State exists, although the avowed use oI
the corn so shipped Is the manufacture Of
mch liquors in another State.